Rods... THE TRUTH!

I just want to say this goes for 99.998% of the orb photos too because when I was in photography I could take pictures out in the sun and get random crap that is floating in the air to be illuminated by the flash or the sun and it would cause the orbs...

Hell you want some more proof?

Go to William One Sac's website... Where he goes to god my brain just went blank....

whatever that base is called, Montauk...

He sticks a camera inside a hole in a building and takes a picture the flash creates orbs

OK with that said back on to rods
Go here, they will show you how to my your OWN rods!

www.ufotheatre.com...

Dont need proof i believe you, i have never done that so i believe yoU.

Those are cool pictures. What are they? I dont mean rods but are they living?

bugs!

Orbs usually can be dust in the air, and that white pollen crap off cotton wood trees, dust, crap on the lense.

I have a photo I took and developed, but something was on my lense and it looks like a disc ufo is behind my friends, it's black and white photo.. if i scanned it people would be like omfg A UFO A REAL ONE I SWEAR IT IS TEH REAL THING MISTAR SMARTEY GUY!

It is rather amazing considering they appear on whatever type of camera (digital, film, and both using motion). Not to mention what type of lens you use. The lens is what most people point to when they deny the existance.

Why are the bugs rod shaped?

did you read the site?

I think you are confusing orbs with rods.

Orbs are suposedly floating lights that could also be dust on the lens or flash reflecting of dust. Rods are flying creatures that have been videoed and seem to be legit, some of the videos I have seen on them would be very hard to fake (well hell you can fake ANYTHING now).

I see rods as being a legitmate being -possibly something that is just beyond our usual poerception, -whereas orbs appears to be just a paranoia attack....

I was speaking about orbs, but the site is about rods

" see rods as being a legitmate being -possibly something that is just beyond our usual poerception"

No way, they are bugs. Very easily bugs as well. NC did you look at the site Lysergic linked to? It is just one of many that now shows how Rods are really nothing more than Bugs. Its clear that these things are not something beyond our perception but the work of nature and lense error.

i've seen rod videos. they're not bugs. bugs don't fly at mach 1.
i have orb photos on film(from different cameras). they've been showing up for the last ten years.
it's not dust. if it were dust, there would be (more)pictures from from the past with orbs in them. this is a relatively new phenomena.
some of the orbs in my photos are moving so fast that they look like slinky's. some look like shoelaces. dust..... hahahaha!
i suppose chemtrails are just contrails, too. i suppose crop circles are all made by two besotted pub hopping old english dudes with a piece of rope and a two by four and nothing better to do. those two guys really walk fast when they're wasted. "team satan", ....that ought to be a clue.

I agree they are 'bugs' certainly they are not an alien race, nor highly intelligent. Just that we havn't noticied them before, bit like bacteria being invisable until the advent of the microscope.

Originally posted by cassini
" see rods as being a legitmate being -possibly something that is just beyond our usual poerception"

No way, they are bugs. Very easily bugs as well. NC did you look at the site Lysergic linked to? It is just one of many that now shows how Rods are really nothing more than Bugs. Its clear that these things are not something beyond our perception but the work of nature and lense error.

Originally posted by billybob
i've seen rod videos. they're not bugs. bugs don't fly at mach 1.
i have orb photos on film(from different cameras). they've been showing up for the last ten years.
it's not dust. if it were dust, there would be (more)pictures from from the past with orbs in them. this is a relatively new phenomena.
some of the orbs in my photos are moving so fast that they look like slinky's. some look like shoelaces. dust..... hahahaha!
i suppose chemtrails are just contrails, too. i suppose crop circles are all made by two besotted pub hopping old english dudes with a piece of rope and a two by four and nothing better to do. those two guys really walk fast when they're wasted. "team satan", ....that ought to be a clue.

hehe.. great post



Ive never seen the big fascination with chemtrails.. the fart waste of Jumbos arent they?

Also for orbs, there is ball lightning. For those who say they saw them.

"bugs don't fly at mach 1."

neither do the things your seeing on the screen.

"some of the orbs in my photos are moving so fast that they look like slinky's."

Orbs moving in stills, well they really must be supernatural.

". "team satan", ....that ought to be a clue."

Sorry, Dubya moment, not getting ya there, ooohhhh righttt

Originally posted by cassini
"bugs don't fly at mach 1."

neither do the things your seeing on the screen.

"some of the orbs in my photos are moving so fast that they look like slinky's."

Orbs moving in stills, well they really must be supernatural.

". "team satan", ....that ought to be a clue."

Sorry, Dubya moment, not getting ya there, ooohhhh righttt

when something is moving quickly, it appears as a streak or blur in a still photo. in the fraction of a second that film is exposed, these objects can appear as an orb, ...or as a streak or spiral where the motion path is clearly visible.
you do not see what i see, therefore, your bias is unfounded.
it seems some people here think debunking is the only way to find the truth.
i never said anything about supernatural. knowing what something isn't doesn't mean you know what it is.
the pictures i have are weird. it's unanimous from everyone who's seen them. i even have a couple black spirals and a black and white one.
and, like i said before... why don't these things show up in old photos? it's a RECENT phenomena.

[Edited on 27-6-2003 by billybob]

"it seems some people here think debunking is the only way to find the truth."

I stand to be corrected its just the evidence I have seen leads me to think that these are no more than bugs that appear in a strange way because of modern photo and cinematic processes.

"why don't these things show up in old photos?"

As above its due more to recent techniques and technology than any sixth dimensional creatures.

If you have some good evidence that this is anything but bugs or can demonstrate properly why it can`t be I`ll happily concede. It would be amazing if they were some new creature or being I`d love it if they were.

more dust?
debunk this.

[Edited on 12-7-2003 by billybob]

those last sites you linked there billybob just look like some one put a shoelace up close to the lens so that it became out of focus.

as for the rods. definately just bugs. and not some unknown never seen befor kind. just regular bugs. just because they streak across the image doesnt mean they are flying mach 1. look at the pictures on the site Lysergic posted origonaly. it's night time in the photos. nothing but a street lamp lighting up the area. the camrea most definately had a longer exposure when the photo was taken. this means that the film was being exposed for a longer amount of time, so if anything was moving in the frame it would streak a little.

the orbs are most definately dust or other small particles floating in the air and are just illuminated by a flashbulb. i do photography all the time and i actually never get these "orbs" in my photos, but thats cause i don't use my flash. if i did i'm sure id get a few photos with some orbs.

i really don't have a sure answer as to why photos from the early 20th century didn't have these things in them. my only guess would be that most of the photos taken were mostly documenting stuff or portraits. so they were taken in ideal settings and lighting. the old cameras weren't nearly as portable as the ones we have today either. yes people brought them all over the world, but they wern't small. they also just didn't go around taking pictures of every thing they could think of. they didn't have the luxury of having small rolls of film. they had to use plates that are much larger and bulkier to carry and they would have used the shots carefully.

anyway i think i'm starting to ramble. but basicly what i want to say is that there is nothing mystical that camera can see that we can't. it sees what we see.

I have taken pictures with "rods" in them. After I did I saw a show on them and realized what it was. Very cool.



Ngihtwalker